This is a show I think is pertinent to a lot of the discussions we have here. It's honestly one of the most powerful pieces of theater I've ever watched. The show itself is like the BF in a bottle, though the excerpt here is only a small part about where your iPhone came from.

There isn't much contention to this particular excerpt, though I think some of the things he mentions are absolutely things that should be discussed here, and I think that watching the show, or at least listening to the excerpt helps to put everything we discuss here into perspective.

Mike Daisey is a great storyteller. I haven't seen this show, but I just listened to the excerpt made for This American Life this morning, and it's very good. Daisey's journey to FoxConn (in '10) is profoundly chilling and unsettling... while still pulling off the trick being darkly funny. It's nothing you don't know if you know how the world works but the devil, as always, is in the details.

TAL also does a great job doing some follow-up and fact-checking, and discussing how the story is anything but one-sided or simple, even the arguable beneficial effects of sweatshops boosting people from extreme poverty into a growing middle class, however rough or brutal this process is. They also note how Apple attempts to police their suppliers via audits, the results of which are feature in their public reports - but at the same time, shielding exactly who commits what exact infractions.

Make no mistake, too - the way Apple products are made aren't pretty, but Apple is far from the only company whose products are made this way (if anything, Apple is held to a higher standard and probably has some of the stricter audits in the industry, for whatever those audits are worth). All technology products, and many, many other kinds of products, are made this way as well. TANSTAAFL.

TAL ends the episode on a relatively optimistic note, suggesting that workers are gaining more power as more employment options become available and workers quit factories with worse conditions, creating inefficient, costly high turnover, which - perhaps more than any audits, gov't regulations (only because there seems little chance of that, sadly), or outside human rights group pressure - may force these dystopian places to adopt more humane working conditions, simply to improve their bottom line. I can only hope that turns out to be the trend in the long run.

The story points out that Dell is also a manufacturer (in reality, it's also Microsoft, Samsung, Sony, and others) I really believe that an alliance of manufacturers needs to get together and really do something about raising the working conditions and renumeration of factory workers in China and elsewhere. I was sickened by Steve Jobs' reactionary anti-union attitude when I read the recent biography. Hopefully, the new regime at Apple will be more progressive in dealing with the workforces of its suppliers.

Anti-Apple people routinely use Foxxconn working conditions as a slight against Apple, but in reality every company that makes/uses any sort of tech is a client of theirs.

That said, I honestly believe Apple is the only company that can do something about the plight of Foxxconn workers. If they publicly denounced them and cancelled their contracts with them, I honestly believe that would be enough.

Heard that TAL piece as well, and frankly, Daisy's ending quote says it all for me: there are things that could be done in those factories (such as rotating working staff so they do not wreck parts of their bodies completely) that are not about paying more, or significantly increasing the cost. Apple, Dell, Sony, HTC, (ad infinitum) have a responsibility to, at the very least, insist on some basic standards that have existed and been known in manufacturing in "developed" countries for decades. And it's time for us as consumers to *demand* it of them.

Anti-Apple people routinely use Foxxconn working conditions as a slight against Apple, but in reality every company that makes/uses any sort of tech is a client of theirs.

That said, I honestly believe Apple is the only company that can do something about the plight of Foxxconn workers. If they publicly denounced them and cancelled their contracts with them, I honestly believe that would be enough.

I can't help but think they might be able to be even more effective internally, by threatening to take their business elsewhere, or more subtly, playing suppliers against one another when infractions or circumvention of audits are uncovered.

I hope that's what's going on (e.g. Foxconn vs Pegatron), but unfortunately we have no way of knowing.

Apple is of course just the norm for this, not the exception, and possibly more stringent and demanding than many, but they still make a great and natural target for raising awareness about this, because Apple users tends to have an extraordinary level of emotional connection with their products.

You really should look at the relative common practices in factories in North America. The number that override safety lockouts; intentionally train employees to do things in unsafe methods because they are slightly faster, etc.

I had the pleasure of being exposed to some workers comp reports that would make you think it was the 1800s.

Indeed, however, those workers' comp reports exist here, and when it gets really bad (Upper Big Branch mine) there are consequences. There was an explosion at a Chinese electronic parts supplier last week or so. I'm reasonably certain that there won't be multimillion dollar settlements there. If Daisey is right, Shenzhen is pretty much the Gilded Age and Dickensian England all in one. Or as some in the US might call it, perfect free-market capitalism.

Therein lies the difficulty of doing something about it. It's the liberal economic consensus, with its "global market" rhetoric, and it runs across the established Democratic and Republican parties. We see a similar liberal economic consensus in Australia although we descended into from a much more socially aware economic base.

Therein lies the difficulty of doing something about it. It's the liberal economic consensus, with its "global market" rhetoric, and it runs across the established Democratic and Republican parties. We see a similar liberal economic consensus in Australia although we descended into from a much more socially aware economic base.

Hmm, well, not to get all get Soap Boxy, but while there's a consensus on free trade, for better or worse, I think there's still a vast difference between Democrat and Republican attitudes toward gov't regulations and constraints on industry. You know?

I don't know. I know that Apple releases publicly available, fairly detailed summaries of their own audits, the latest of which was also just released today, and provides a full list of suppliers for the first time (while stopping short of saying what suppliers committed exactly what infractions). They seem to have ramped up the number of audits, too.

I don't know. I know that Apple releases publicly available, fairly detailed summaries of their own audits, the latest of which was also just released today, and provides a full list of suppliers for the first time (while stopping short of saying what suppliers committed exactly what infractions). They seem to have ramped up the number of audits, too.

It's clearly not enough I'm afraid.

In fact, I wouldn't even mind Apple publically withdrawing support for Foxconn as a marketing ploy to make their competitors look bad.

I don't know. I know that Apple releases publicly available, fairly detailed summaries of their own audits, the latest of which was also just released today, and provides a full list of suppliers for the first time (while stopping short of saying what suppliers committed exactly what infractions). They seem to have ramped up the number of audits, too.

If they really wanted to do something about this, and I'm not convinced at all that they or anyone else really gives a shit, they would simply stop dealing with these companies. Just stop. If they have to raise the price of their products 20 to 25%, so be it.

I don't know. I know that Apple releases publicly available, fairly detailed summaries of their own audits, the latest of which was also just released today, and provides a full list of suppliers for the first time (while stopping short of saying what suppliers committed exactly what infractions). They seem to have ramped up the number of audits, too.

If they really wanted to do something about this, and I'm not convinced at all that they or anyone else really gives a shit, they would simply stop dealing with these companies. Just stop. If they have to raise the price of their products 20 to 25%, so be it.

And we know for a fact that Apple for one can afford it. It would probably even increase sales across the board.

I don't know. I know that Apple releases publicly available, fairly detailed summaries of their own audits, the latest of which was also just released today, and provides a full list of suppliers for the first time (while stopping short of saying what suppliers committed exactly what infractions). They seem to have ramped up the number of audits, too.

If they really wanted to do something about this, and I'm not convinced at all that they or anyone else really gives a shit, they would simply stop dealing with these companies. Just stop. If they have to raise the price of their products 20 to 25%, so be it.

And we know for a fact that Apple for one can afford it. It would probably even increase sales across the board.

If they ate some of that 23%, though, their stock would tank. Hell, their stock would tank just with the announcement that they were severing ties with Foxconn.

I'm all for using Apple as a target to build public awareness of the conditions in which products are made (thumbs up to the Daily Show), but let's cut the bullshit that either companies don't give a shit or they must cut all ties with these giant superfactories. Or even that raising prices a completely made-up number (e.g. 25%) somehow magically solves the problem or would be viable - meeting demand for *hundreds* of millions of devices is no small matter.

The reality is more complex. Truth is, cutting all ties with places like FoxConn could just as easily be harmful rather than helpful. (The impact of sweatshops are complicated, and debatable.) I think the best course of action - until the government is pressured and forced by its people to enact proper reforms and regulations - is to lay out rules ensuring humane conditions, audit frequently to check on those rules, and reduce the amount of business for companies that infract those rules (motivating them to play by more humane rules if they want to get that business back).

Apple seems to be doing that to some extent, but it's still not entirely clear exactly what priority holding suppliers' feet to the fire is for them vs getting their products made at the prices they want. Last Friday's announcements were steps in the right direction, but the more transparency the better.

If they have to raise the price of their products 20 to 25%, so be it.

In Daisey's show, he explicitly calls out this argument as an incorrect one. I can't remember the exact quote but it was along the lines of "When people are told all of this, the usual question is 'how much more do I need to pay?', but the problem is [he puts on a disgusted expression] it's not about MONEY". His answer was that the problem will be solved when we recognize the people that build all our shit are not simply replaceable parts, and that they are actually people. Recognize the humanity, and the money thing will find its own level.

I thought the penultimate scenes of The Human Centipede II were the ROFL-est visual metaphor for modern capitalism that I've seen for a while.*

Meanwhile, as Ginger Rat notes, Apple is apparently responding:

Quote:

The Fair Labor Association announced on Friday that Apple is now a participating member, making it the first technology company to earn that distinction.

By joining the FLA, Apple agrees to have the association independently assess facilities in its supply chain and report detailed findings on the association's website. Apple also agrees to uphold the FLA Workplace Code of Conduct throughout its supply chains, and commit to the association's Principles of Fair Labor and Responsible Sourcing.

"We found that Apple takes supplier responsibility seriously and we look forward to their participation in the Fair Labor Association," Auret van Heerden, FLA's President and CEO, said in a press release. "We welcome Apple's commitment to greater transparency and independent oversight, and we hope its participation will set a new standard for the electronics industry."

FWIW, the end of the show cited Krugman and I believe another NY Times columnist who's written a lot on developing world issues, maybe Nicholas Kristoff. On balance, they said this kind of manufacturing work improves the lives of the workers and their families, at least materially. You hear stories about girls working in the factories, living in factory dorms but they're able to send money back to their families, which would otherwise have to rely on subsistence farming.

If Apple takes their business away from Foxconn, would other manufacturers be able to replace that business to keep all these workers employed? Or would Foxconn have to shut down the factories until they regained that level of business or possibly mothball some plants?

These tech gadgets are luxury items to most of the world -- and even in the industrialized world, you have to have a certain level of disposable income to be able to afford them. What about more essential goods, such as produce, which comes from the fields through the use of migrant labor? Question is often asked how much more would we pay for food in order for farm workers to be paid decent wages and work under better conditions?

Of course the other thing about tech is the environmental damage. No matter what measures companies take to minimize the use of toxic substances, the fact remains that their success depends on continually increasing sales, often by encouraging consumers to upgrade from perfectly usable devices to the "latest and greatest," to take advantage of the newest "innovations."

That means more use of resources, both raw materials and energy, to produce incremental volumes of tech gadgets, not to mention more disposal of electronics to landfills in 3rd World countries where cheap labor is used under less than ideal working conditions.

As consumers and even investors, we are not much less complicit in these behaviors than the companies which produce and sell these products. Yet, even if this issue was more widely publicized, most people in the industrialized world won't much care. People arguing about Android vs. iOS, LCD vs. plasma, etc. aren't agonizing over the implications of their embrace of the fruits of globalization, no more than have people felt even a twinge of regret that by participating in the diamond trade, diamond mine workers have worked and lived under horrible conditions and have even been killed because of the inflated value of the gems.

Excellent series of articles on the "iEconomy" from the NYT, focusing on Apple as the (rightfully) prime example for what's going on in globalization in general, and globalization in the tech industry in particular.

Strongly recommended - well worth reading. Balanced and critical, without letting Apple (or places like FoxConn, or consumers) off the hook. A lot of follow-up and sidebars on the NYT front page as well.

The article notes the tension inside Apple between execs attending the bottom line vs execs wanting to improve conditions in these factories, and one can see how that plays out with Apple setting up strict rules and audits, while at the same time using notorious hard-nosed, tough negotiations which allow for the tiniest of profits for these suppliers, which inevitably lead some (if not many) of these same suppliers to try to overwork their workers, cut corners, etc. It's a vicious cycle.

That article reminded me of something I had read about Walmart a few years back, where they would make an agreement with a supplier, causing the supplier to staff up, increasing order volume, causing more staffing, then after a period of time demanding a price cut, essentially giving them the options of losing their main source of business (Walmart), or eating the price cut, sometimes causing the company to go in the red.

Apple said Monday that it had asked an outside organization to conduct special audits of working conditions inside Chinese factories where iPhones, iPads and other Apple products are manufactured. And in a significant about-face for the company that has the potential to affect the electronics industry, Apple asked the organization to identify particular facilities where abuses are discovered.

Agreed, there are news organizations that would have made this retraction a footnote on a blog post. Kudos toTAL for not only getting to the bottom of this, but giving listeners all of this info as well.

Agreed, there are news organizations that would have made this retraction a footnote on a blog post. Kudos toTAL for not only getting to the bottom of this, but giving listeners all of this info as well.

He's a humorist and monologist. He'll have no trouble "getting work." The trouble came when an apparently three-quarters-made-up theater piece (all referencing things that did happen, but he didn't actually personally witness or interview) entered NPR/TAL as actual journalism.

And no question, seriously disappointing and flat-out unappetizing just how Daisey ran with it *as* journalism, post-TAL, as it got a ton of media attention, with things that were completely, flat-out made-up. Daisey's excuse for why this was OK is completely lame.

But even before the monologue hit TAL, I think it's still creepy how monologues being passed off as true, real-life experiences are full of stuff that's just invented and made-up. If you do that kind of stuff, and it's not obvious exaggerations for comic effect, make it 100% clear to your audience that you're blurring the fact/fiction line.

He's a humorist and monologist. He'll have no trouble "getting work." The trouble came when an apparently three-quarters-made-up theater piece (all referencing things that did happen, but he didn't actually personally witness or interview) entered NPR/TAL as actual journalism.

And no question, seriously disappointing and flat-out unappetizing just how Daisey ran with it *as* journalism, post-TAL, as it got a ton of media attention, with things that were completely, flat-out made-up. Daisey's excuse for why this was OK is completely lame.

But even before the monologue hit TAL, I think it's still creepy how monologues being passed off as true, real-life experiences are full of stuff that's just invented and made-up. If you do that kind of stuff, and it's not obvious exaggerations for comic effect, make it 100% clear to your audience that you're blurring the fact/fiction line.

The trouble was that, when pressed, Daisey lied to Glass on the air. He passed off his theater as reality.

The worst part is that this kind of over-the-top sensationalism that was supposed to help the cause of overseas workers will actually end up hurting them far more, thanks to increased skepticism towards any new claims of worker abuse or poor safety/working conditions.

The trouble was that, when pressed, Daisey lied to Glass on the air. He passed off his theater as reality.

Right, and tried to cover his tracks by not providing the translator's contact info, and changing her name. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Quote:

The worst part is that this kind of over-the-top sensationalism that was supposed to help the cause of overseas workers will actually end up hurting them far more, thanks to increased skepticism towards any new claims of worker abuse or poor safety/working conditions.

Yeah, it's too bad. But the issue has always seemed to me more complex than any one simple solution suggests. Seems to me Apple is already taking this issue with increased seriousness. And the NYT series stands, unsullied.